Wp/17514/2006 Of Sri K. Ravi Raju, Secunderabad v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd And Another

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY wRlT PETITION NO: 17514 OF 2006 Between: Sri K. Ravi Raju, S/o. A.K. Raju, aged 42 years, 38, P & T Colony, Opp: Vikrampuri,Secunderabad 5OO 009 ..PETITIONER AND 1, Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle - 10 (1), Hyderabad. 2. Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP-V, Buddha Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under kticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may becircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order ordirection under Article 226 under constitution of lndia for :direction under Article 226 under constitution of lndia for : a) Holding that no interest is leviable at all under s.234-4 for assessment [year]2000-2001; b) Holding that even if such interest is leviable, the quantum of interest should becalculated as nil (instead of Rs. 1,05,525) in this case ; and c) Quashing the levy of interest contained in the intimation dated [5-3-2002]issued by the first respondent, which was restored by the lncome Tax AppellateTribunal by its order dated 28-2-2006; l.A. NO: 1 OF 200(;(WPMP. NO: 21951 OF 2006) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toprayed that the recovery of the interest of Rs. 1,05,525 may be stated by thisHon'ble Court dur'ng the pendency of the present writ petition, as otherwise thepetitioner will be put severe loss an hardship. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit fileC in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toexpedite the hearing of the writ petition in interest of Justice.in the affidavit fileC in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toexpedite the hearing of the writ petition in interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. RANGANATHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Court made the following: ORDER I /I / \ i-. \ THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYANAND THE HON'BLE SRT WSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1751 4 of 2o,06 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjat BLugan) Heard Mr. R. Ranganathan, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income TaxDepartment for the respondents.and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income TaxDepartment for the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the lery ofinterest contained in the intimation dated 05.03.2002 issued bvthe 1"t respondent. 3. Without entering into the factual narrative, there is aconsensus at the Bar that the issue raised in this writ petition issquarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in PranoyRoy v, Commissioner of Income-Taxl. issue involved is 1er,y ofinterest for delay in filing the return of income. In this case,though there was delay in filing the return of income, the incometax $.as paid before the due date. It has been held that interest is II 2HC] & CVBRJW.P.No.17514 of 2006 not a penalty. Interest is levied by way of compensation tocompensate th,: Revenue in order to avoid the Revenue from beingdeprived of the payment of tax on the due date. Interest would bepayable in a case where tax has not beeh deposited prior to thedue date of the filing of the income tax return. When the tax duehad already br:en paid before the due date, question of levy ofinterest would not arise. 4. That being the position, intimation dated 05.03.2OO2 isset aside and quashed II 2HC] & CVBRJW.P.No.17514 of 2006 not a penalty. Interest is levied by way of compensation tocompensate th,: Revenue in order to avoid the Revenue from beingdeprived of the payment of tax on the due date. Interest would bepayable in a case where tax has not beeh deposited prior to thedue date of the filing of the income tax return. When the tax duehad already br:en paid before the due date, question of levy ofinterest would not arise. 4. That being the position, intimation dated 05.03.2OO2 isset aside and quashed 5. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, thereshall be no ord,:r as to costs. HIGH COURT DATED: 281'1212022 ORDER W.P.No.17514 of 2006 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS @[d(c)]tu--^{,w iii; [li ][TA.14.],3/<C)D5J i.i'i2023f)5;!*